Spotted among the blog posts about the “NOW they’re angry…” types was this — a Tea Party type that was apparently called a hypocrite because he revealed he was getting Social Security Disability payments. Naturally, he makes sneering references to “collectivists”, presumably talking about liberal bloggers. I only have one question for him: is your issue not with collectivism per se but with the administration of such via government (meaning this would extend to even features of shared responsibility through the state that the Right normally defends, and collectivism OUTSIDE of government would be greeted neutrally on his part)?
As I recently noted in comments, I’m not about to scream at people using what little benefit they do get for now, as that’s not the real problem: the type of post-state society I have in mind is one where state-run social programs have been rendered irrelevant due to mutual aid & the gains of radical labor, not simply abolished & replaced with nothing. In the meantime, if it’s a matter of survival, do what you need to do.
So, no, asking “where’s mine?” in the face of the current system isn’t hypocrisy. Redefining collectivism such that what you like doesn’t count, while arguing as if what others like is Pure Evil, on the other hand, is worse than hypocritical.
Edit: never mind, I have my answer:
In 2006, Vanderboegh advocated hurling bricks through the windows of members of Congress who supported giving illegal immigrants the same rights as U.S. citizens, according to news reports at the time. He said those bricks should be used to build a wall sealing off the United States from Mexico. (emphasis mine)
I don’t recall anyone asking me if I wanted to pay for your anti-immigration enforcement. “Collectivists” indeed…